This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

The importance of Oxbridge in politics

t.w.

HCD

Research is done by postgrads, postdocs and professors. I believe Chris's statement was regarding undergrad teaching, but I could be wrong.

Just because you preface everything with 'I could be wrong', doesn't mean I can't inform you when you are wrong!

HCD

Look at the ARWU's methodology and you'll see that it's only really going to be influenced by postgraduate studies.

This point seems to ignores the obvious way in which postgraduate studies are intrinsically linked to undergraduates'. It was pointed out that Oxbridge still frequent the world top ten universities in most ranking systems, and you implied that this is not relevant to undergraduate study with the above post. Many rational people would disagree with this, and it was your implication here that spurred on my disagreements later. Don't try and wriggle out of it by pointing out that you didn't explicitly say anything - I can disagree with what you imply, even if it is implicit. The simple truth is that your post above was intended to weaken an earlier point made about university rankings.

May I remind you also of post 77, which you have conveniently ignored:

HCD

Why do you assume he hasn't experienced other places? How do you know he didn't transfer out of Oxford into another university?

t.w.

Here's what he said:

It's only once you experience the place that you realise that there are far better places to be educated

Now tell me, where has he implied the possibility of experiencing anywhere else? He quite clearly stated that after experiencing Oxford alone, he was aware of the so-called superiority of a multitude of other institutions. It is quite clearly the

experience of the place (Oxford)

that gives the information, rather than the experience of a plurality of places.

He may well have transferred somewhere else, but this is irrelevant, because he implied he was aware of Oxford's inferiority simply because he had experienced Oxford, and made no reference to anywhere else.

Reply 81

t.w.

5

HCD

Here, I merely pointed out that the ARWU was unsuitable for assessing undergraduate teaching,

Yes, I disagreed.

and said that Chris might have been referring to undergraduate education.

He clearly wasn't (or if he was, he didn't suggest it in any way), he was referring to the decline of the institution as a whole.

I couldn't agree with him seriously, because I've got no bloody clue what standards are like.

Do you disagree that Oxford as a university is in a state of decline? You're a scientist aren't you, so you'll know what the burden of proof is. In which case, you'll know that any rational person will lack belief in a positive claim until sufficient evidence for that claim is provided. Therefore, you should lack belief in the claim that Oxbridge standards are declining, as you've already admitted you've seen no evidence to substantiate this.

Here, I drew your attention to the possibility that he could have transferred.

I showed this was irrelevant. You ignored my response. Post 77.

I don't see you drawing any weakness to my position here. At all. There are only two possible things that could render my points invalid:

1. There is a 0% chance that Chris meant undergraduate teaching standards
2. There is a 0% chance that Chris transferred

False dichotomy, anyone? There are many, many ways I can show weaknesses and hypocrisy in your position, indeed, this is mostly what I'm doing in this post. I shouldn't have to show there is a 0% chance of anything (as a scientist you should be aware of something here, too). All I need to show is adequate evidence that you implied something, and reasonable arguments that this implication is wrong. I don't know who told you that prefacing everything with 'I could be wrong' makes you immune from criticism - I guess you're just having to learn the hard way.

Please, quote me on something from page 4 or 5 of this thread where I made a point that is debatable.You can't.

See post above...

You cannot argue against the possibility that Chris meant undergrad teaching, or the possibility that he transferred.

I can point out the weaknesses of remaining agnostic as to the truth of Chris's claim. I can point out that it's highly unlikely Chris was referring solely to ungraduate teaching (highly, highly unlikely) or that it's almost certain that even if he did transfer (which he made no mention of), such a transfer is completely irrelevant! (see post 77 please!).

With no evidence to 100% refute the possibilities, there is no falsification possible. It's that simple.

If only it were that simple. Sadly, for your credibility, it isn't.

Reply 82

t.w.

5

At this point folks, HCD deals the killer blow in the argument. He distributes some negative rep, with the short, succint and transcendentally witty word 'die' as an accompaniment. This came as a real blow to me, as I'd recently worked my way up from two red chunks to one, and the -25 points caused by HCD's actions have dragged me back down to two, negating all my efforts in recent weeks. I've really bitten off more than I can chew here.

ETA: What's even more pathetic is that HCD didn't even have the courage to leave his name. Frankly, I'm embarrassed for him.

Reply 83

HCD

16

t.w.

Just because you preface everything with 'I could be wrong', doesn't mean I can't inform you when you are wrong!

You're saying I'm wrong. Therefore, you're saying it's utterly impossible that Chris referred to undergraduate study alone.

t.w.

This point seems to ignores the obvious way in which postgraduate studies are intrinsically linked to undergraduates'. It was pointed out that Oxbridge still frequent the world top ten universities in most ranking systems, and you implied that this is not relevant to undergraduate study with the above post. Many rational people would disagree with this, and it was your implication here that spurred on my disagreements later. Don't try and wriggle out of it by pointing out that you didn't explicitly say anything - I can disagree with what you imply, even if it is implicit. The simple truth is that your post above was intended to weaken an earlier point made about university rankings.

I remarked only the the ARWU, because I haven't seen any world university rankings that cover undergraduate studies. As that was the only example given, what's wrong with pointing out that it doesn't cover undergraduate teaching? Indeed, if a university focused solely on research, undergraduates would suffer from half-hearted lectures by professors who are eager to get back to their research. Let's not get into that, though; Imperial tops the Physics research tables, but falls beneath Oxford and Cambridge in terms of teaching. As you know, I pay little attention to league tables, but this discrepancy shows that research and teaching don't necessarily follow; of course, they often will, I agree.

As it stands, I made no comment regarding Oxbridge, nor did I intend to imply one. I've never looked at any other world tables, just the ARWU's. I just pointed out that it doesn't look at undergraduate teaching, so should not be used as such a resource.

t.w.

May I remind you also of post 77, which you have conveniently ignored:

I included my post. I did not ignore it. I explained to you precisely why there was no argument there. 77 was your post - you inferred meaning in post 76 that was never there in the first place. Apparently, you are so arrogant that what you perceive my meaning to be trumps my actual meaning.

Reply 84

t.w.

5

How can actual meaning ever be deduced other than through perceptions?
Q.E.D.

Reply 85

HCD

16

t.w.

He clearly wasn't (or if he was, he didn't suggest it in any way), he was referring to the decline of the institution as a whole.

He was relating his judgement to his undergraduate experiences. How does that make it clear that he wasn't? He still could be. All I'm saying is that there's a finite possibility that he was.

t.w.

Do you disagree that Oxford as a university is in a state of decline? You're a scientist aren't you, so you'll know what the burden of proof is. In which case, you'll know that any rational person will lack belief in a positive claim until sufficient evidence for that claim is provided. Therefore, you should lack belief in the claim that Oxbridge standards are declining, as you've already admitted you've seen no evidence to substantiate this.

As I've said, I don't know if it's in decline. I doubt it is, but that's besides the point. Of course I lack belief in the idea that it's declining.

t.w.

I showed this was irrelevant. You ignored my response. Post 77.

Post 77. :rofl:

I was only pointing out that your assumption that he's never experienced another university might not be 100% true. Basing your argument on something that may not be true would be folly, so if anything I was helping you. Whether or not it had anything to do with his post is a different story. I never said that his arguments held true. I was just pointing out a potential possibility that you might like to consider.

t.w.

All I need to show is adequate evidence that you implied something

You haven't, as I implied nothing.

Reply 86

HCD

16

t.w.

How can actual meaning ever be deduced other than through perceptions?
Q.E.D.

Logical perceptions would be a start.

A: "I don't like potatoes"

B: "HOW CAN YOU SAY POTATOES ARE THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL, YOU WHORE?"

B is perceiving meaning in A's statement that is clearly not there. You are person B.

Reply 87

t.w.

5

HCD

Post 77.

This humiliation is causing you to 'rofl', is it? Odd reaction...

I was only pointing out that your assumption that he's never experienced another university might not be 100% true.

I haven't assumed that at all - I assumed that any experiences of other universities would be irrelevant, seeing as he claimed it was the experience of Oxford alone that allowed him to compare! See Post 77!

HCD

a finite possibility

Of course, an infinitesimal possibility would spell disaster for your argument wouldn't it?

You haven't, as I implied nothing.

We both know this isn't the case. This is getting rather dull.

Interestingly, I think death threats convene the TSR rules somewhat, and shall be pursuing the matter (involving the threats made through the reputation system) further. This may well culminate in legal action.

Reply 88

t.w.

5

t.w.

How can actual meaning ever be deduced other than through perceptions?
Q.E.D.

HCD

Logical perceptions would be a start.

I think it's my turn to 'rofl'...
That is definitely sig-worthy.

Reply 89

HCD

16

t.w.

I haven't assumed that at all - I assumed that any experiences of other universities would be irrelevant, seeing as he claimed it was the experience of Oxford alone that allowed him to compare! See Post 77!

How many times? I haven't claimed otherwise. I don't think that the experience of Oxford alone would give his argument any weight. I don't agree with him.

t.w.

Of course, an infinitesimal possibility would spell disaster for your argument wouldn't it?

At this juncture, one cannot disregard the possibility as being infinitesimal.

t.w.

We both know this isn't the case. This is getting rather dull.

In fact, I know this is the case (I know what I mean), whereas you are self-deluded into believing that it isn't. We'll have to agree to disagree - enjoy your delusions.

t.w.

Interestingly, I think death threats convene the TSR rules somewhat, and shall be pursuing matter (involving the threats made through the reputation system) further. This may well culminate in legal action.

Oh, goody! :smile:

EDIT:

This should be my last post in the thread. Your responses are so ethereally insubstantial, unsubstantiated and lacking in substance that tautology becomes imperative. Additionally, certain members of the establishment have advised me against providing nourishment to those who dwell beneath bridges, intimidating goats. I shall therefore have to bid you adieu. :top2:

Reply 90

t.w.

5

chris262

t.w., it is obvious from your posts above that you are incapable of having a sensible discussion.

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10740162#post10740162
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10766719#post10766719

Both very sensible, would you agree? It's only when people, HCD in particular, mock my decisions for applying (or mock me in some unfair manner) that I degenerate into the child-like epitome of arrogance you see snarling before you...

For your information, I have experienced Oxford and another university so I do have a basis of comparison, and I know other people who have transferred and say the same thing.

I have no doubt your experience gives you far more expertise in this area than I have, but no amount of experience could justify arguing that 25% of Oxford students drop out, and I don't need any experience at all to point out that this argument is contradicted by certain statistics (not related to league tables, by the way).

Are you going to Oxford? If so, I hope you enjoy it and don't regret it, I really do. The opinions I have expressed are based on my experiences of the university, the experiences of my friends and others I have discussed the subject with, and bits of information I gathered during my time as a student there. You are free to disagree with them, as you have, but until you really know what you are talking about (ie. have had some first hand experience of the university), I suggest you keep an open mind.

I will keep an open mind as to the levels of depression at Oxford, and would be lying if your (and others) posts haven't changed or swayed my original position somewhat. All I'm saying is that I think your estimate for the number of drop-outs was exaggerated.

I'm not going to waste any more time on this so I won't be replying to you regarding this subject again.

Fair enough.

Reply 91

*The One

1

I love the way so many threads on TSR get hijacked and diverted away from their original purpose!!

Reply 92

the_alba

12

t.w.

Whilst I don't doubt you have extensive experience of Oxford's English Department, perhaps you could provide some other sources citing these academics?

It's really not the kind of thing people want to be quoted on. Plus, such table talk is not generally written about by academics, who are too busy writing about books. Still, suffice to say that I've met a large number of academics now who hold this opinion of the department, many of them work there, and a few of them tried to dissuade me from going there for that reason. I probably should have listened to them at the time, but oh well, I found out for myself soon enough.

t.w.

Many of the professors are considered world experts (often the leading authority) on a certain area of the study of literature - I'm not aware of any other UK department, except perhaps Cambridge, that can boast a group of scholars with a similar international reputation.

This:
http://www.english.ox.ac.uk/faculty/list.htm
seems to suggest the very antithesis of decline.

In what ways do you feel the department has declined, and does this decline particularly affect undergraduate study, or is it more applicable to (your experiences) post graduate?

Have you considered the possibility that the (apparently decrepid) St. John's Fellows inability to comprehend or appreciate the absurdism of Beckett and modernism of Joyce, and their consequent lack of competence in this area, might not be reflective of the departments attitudes and expertise overall? Surely you concede that even the strongest departments will be less strong, perhaps even weak, in certain areas?

Oxford is pretty unique in allowing professors to keep their jobs, houses and lifestyles while only doing a minimal, half-arsed amount of teaching, and publishing precisely nothing. No other British university would allow its senior staff to get away with this on such a widespread level. They are also hopelessly lenient with their 'media dons', whose relationship with the media is valued above their relationship with students, and in some cases seems to replace their serious academic work. These two criticisms are particularly true in the periods that interest me the most, which I'm sure is why I'd feel the problem more keenly. There are some brilliant academics working in the medieval and Renaissance periods, and yes, what you say is true - Oxford can't be expected to be stellar in all areas. But, with such a sprawling faculty, they could and should be replacing some of the more useless academics (and I don't just mean the aging, drunken ones - the tolerance of mediocrity apparently extends further than that) with good academics who will cover the department's weak spots, like Joyce, Beckett, 20th century and contemporary poetry, etc. It's a symptom of the department's stagnation that this hasn't yet happened.

I really don't see how linking to the faculty list adds anything here. The list is long, but it's impossible to get a sense of the department's strength by reading it. In most cases, only research interests are mentioned (and this, in at least two cases I can see, translates into 'once wrote an 800 word TLS review on this author in 1964'); publications are only mentioned briefly, and only by some, and we have no idea how they were judged and received unless we are already familiar with them (which the average undergrad wouldn't be, and the average postgrad would be only sporadically). When I first saw the faculty list, years ago now (it hasn't been updated or redesigned for years, though it needs it), I thought the sloppiness and inconclusiveness of it indicated a certain apathy and laurel-leanage; I certainly didn't think, 'Now there's a stellar department'.

Postgrad life in the department is not brilliant, though college activities and whatnot liven it up a bit. But then, Oxford brands itself as an undergraduate university, and it is. However, landing oneself brilliant tutors is a matter of luck, and this makes a huge difference in one's experience of the intellectual life of the department. The course, like the faculty website, looks like it hasn't been refurbished in decades, there is an unhealthy emphasis on historical-biographical-bibliographical textual responses, and the examination-heavy assessment procedures don't foster or teach the skills needed to write long essays and research, and thus don't provide the particularly good academic training (Cambridge shares this problem).

Reply 93

t.w.

5

the_alba, I have no problem admitting you're vastly more knowledgeable than me about this, and for this reason, there isn't really much else I can contribute to the discussion. I do value your post and it has made me reflect on my opinion somewhat but I'm sure you'll appreciate that it'll take more than a post on an Internet forum to completely change my view of the Oxford English Department, and I'll have to experience the place and experience the negative aspects of which you speak in large abundance before I comply with your complaints.
I'm still convinced the Oxford English department is one of, if not the best English department in the UK, and there seem to be many, many youthful tutors there (hence my linking to the faculty) which seemed at odds with your point about lack of young blood. I agree the website is a bit of a joke , by the way!

Reply 94

the_alba

12

t.w.

the_alba, I have no problem admitting you're vastly more knowledgeable than me about this, and for this reason, there isn't really much else I can contribute to the discussion. I do value your post and it has made me reflect on my opinion somewhat but I'm sure you'll appreciate that it'll take more than a post on an Internet forum to completely change my view of the Oxford English Department, and I'll have to experience the place and experience the negative aspects of which you speak in large abundance before I comply with your complaints.
I'm still convinced the Oxford English department is one of, if not the best English department in the UK, and there seem to be many, many youthful tutors there (hence my linking to the faculty) which seemed at odds with your point about lack of young blood. I agree the website is a bit of a joke , by the way!

This is a good, fair post. It's only right that you should want to come to your own conclusions when you experience the place; that's what I did, and why I didn't listen to the negative comments I heard about the department before I actually got there. And I do have some positive things to say about it too.

There are many young fellows yes, and many more young GTAs. The younger staff at Oxford are mostly excellent, and they're overworked too in my opinion, to compensate for the duffers at the top who produce nothing. That's my main complaint about the department - but in ten or fifteen years time, that won't even be a problem anymore anyway, as they'll all have finally retired.

The importance of Oxbridge in politics

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you